Posted - 07/23/2012 : 11:27:11 Daren Dreger is reporting Nash has been traded to the rangers with more details to follow

66 is > than 99

34 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Beans15

Posted - 07/27/2012 : 15:41:31 I might give you one of those four but they are a stretch.

Bure played in only 42 games as a Ranger. During his time they he suffered knee injuries serious enough to require 2 surgeries and force his retirement. Even with they, he has 31 goals in those 42 games. That a 60 goal season pace. Is that underachieving.

Messier brought them the Cup in '94. I need to say nothing more than that for the greatest leader in the history of the sport. His second stint with the club was not as productive however his first season back was a 67 pt effort. Not bad for a guy pushing 40. Nope. You don't get that one.

Gretzky was also in the very twilight of his career with the Rangers. Even though he was also pushing 40 he was over a point per game player with 249 pts in 234 games for the Blue Shirts. Not an underacheiver either.

Finally Lindros. This one is closer. It's hard to gauge what the expectation was as he was not only coming off the gross concussion from the Stevens hit but he also sat out an entire year during the contract dispute with Philly. His first season was a point per game effort but then he was hurt again and then got another concussion. This might be considered underachieving, but it's arguable at best.

So again, examples of maybe the expectation being unrealistically high. As Slozo said, I think Nash already has too high of an expection and I don't think he meets it. I don't think he gets 40 goals but he will get more than 30. If the Rangers make at least the East final than people will to complain too much. Anything less than the East Finals or a 40+ goal and 80+ point season and Nash will be added to the long list of perceived underachievers.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest8048

Posted - 07/27/2012 : 15:34:49

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Ok, I gotta get in on this and simple say, WTF???

He played in 31 games in 05 and had 15 goals and 29 pts. That's crappy, hey!! Jagr was 34 yrs old in 06 when he played his first full season for the Rangers.That is past the prime of an NHL player. He did nothing but break 8 long standing Ranger records including goals, points, and game winning goals in a season, won the Hart and Pearson, was a first team All Star, and took the Ranger to the playoffs for the first time in 7 years.

Josh, did you seriously make the statement that you ADDED Jagr to the list of underperformers in NY??? He won the friggin Hart and Pearson! He was the best player in the NHL in '06 as a Ranger! How is that underperforming??

I will be the first to agree that Sather and the Rangers were very loose with their wallet and significantly overpaid many players. However, there is a HUGE difference between a player underperforming and a player not meeting the expectations of their contract.

Give me this long list of players. I can think of a few but when you take the money of out of it and ask yourself if the player actually underperformed, I think you will be surprised of how short that list is.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

I relooked at Jagrs stats and I was wrong. Jagr while not maintaining his 1.5 point a game pace in Pittsburg, was pretty close to his point a game pace in Washington and returned to form his 2nd year in New York 2005-2006. I was remembering his last 31 games in 2003-2004 for NYR which were noted for his lowest point a game pace year at that time.

If you go back a few years further you get Lindros, Gretzky, Bure, and Messier

slozo

Posted - 07/27/2012 : 06:10:36 Exactly.

And I can now solidly predict, that when Nash finishes this season - which will start off with astronomical expectations that will most assuredly never be met - there will be some level of "disappointment" with Nash, even if he gets his usual point totals (say, 32 goals, 34 assists, 66 pts).

That's right folks . . . we are talking about a 65 point player who scores 30 goals,

So yes, if Nash can reach 40 goals again, or 75 points or more . . . I think he'll have overachieved, or at least, had a good season. But in the Ranger's fans minds . . . that's sort of what I feel they are already banking on/expecting.

And on a contender, one that solid defensively . . . it'll be a learning curve for Nash I think, I really do.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Beans15

Posted - 07/27/2012 : 05:13:17

quote:Originally posted by Guest2343

im confused. what is overrated and overpaid. how is there a difference. cuz it sounds like what beans is saying is that if you are paid the right amount you can't overachieve or underachieve and if you get overpaid you cant be overrated.

a team signing a forward to 7 million dollars over a long term certainly expects more than 50 -60 point seasons when they sign him no?

Let's use some examples:

Bobby Hiolik has 3-60 pts seasons in 9 yrs with the Devils. Otherwise, he was a very consistent 20 goal and 44-55 pt guy. He comes to New York and gets 35 pts in 64 games then a seans of 56 pts with 25 goals.

He achieved exact what he had done previously in his career. The fact that he signed a 5yr-$45 million contract does not change the fact that he was a 50 pt a year player.

Alex Ovechkin is currently underachieving. The Caps signed him when he was getting 50-60 goals and 90+ pts a year and paid him properly for doing that. He is now getting less than 40 goals and less than 90 pts.

He was getting paid based on a specific standard and is not meeting that standard.

The difference that a 50 pt players still a 50 pt player regardless if he is being paid $1 million per season or $10 million per season.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest2343

Posted - 07/26/2012 : 21:33:11 im confused. what is overrated and overpaid. how is there a difference. cuz it sounds like what beans is saying is that if you are paid the right amount you can't overachieve or underachieve and if you get overpaid you cant be overrated.

a team signing a forward to 7 million dollars over a long term certainly expects more than 50 -60 point seasons when they sign him no?

slozo

Posted - 07/26/2012 : 20:32:12 Actually, I think Beans made very solid points there. Honestly don't have the time to research and see if he is cherry-picking or not, or if the numbers are right . . . but it sounds about right.

No, that's a fair point - we might have a PERCEPTION of WAY more underachievment than what actually happened. See: media.

Know all about that as a Leafs fan.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

OILINONTARIO

Posted - 07/26/2012 : 15:08:12 Not only that, but Parise and Suter are both overrated if Minny misses the playoffs this year. Deny that.

The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2013.

@valanche

Posted - 07/26/2012 : 14:00:23 Beans I would argue that many of those players were supposed to be entering either their prime where greater things were expected in the near future or they were entering an expanded role. And I disagree completely when a player is offered larger money and become overpaid then greater expectations are placed on them. If parise puts up 60 points this year I see him as overrated and overpaid. With an increase in pay comes increased expectation, by simply staying status quo the player has underachieved and disappointed.

66 is > than 99

Beans15

Posted - 07/26/2012 : 11:45:35 This is where I think people get confused with 'underperformance' vs 'overpaid' and not meeting financial expectation.

If you take a look at player averages and break them out over an 82 game season, it is an interesting picture. For example:

Bobby Holik averaged 20 goal and 26 assists for 46 pts during his career outside of NY. When he was with NY, he averaged 23 goals and 28 assists for 51 pts.

Scott Gomez averaged 17 goals and 50 assists for 67 pts before his time in NY. During his stretch in NY he averaged 17 goals and 49 assists for 66 pts. This does not include his horid time in Montreal.

Michal Rozsival has career years in NY, including a 4 year stretch of more than 30 pts a season. One of those was 40 pts and he has two consecutive season of double digit goal scoring. He didn't do that in Pitt and hasn't done that in Phoenix since leaving NY.

Fleury was on drug in NY. He still managed a 30 goal season and more than 60 pts in all year seasons with the Rangers. No bad for a 30 yr old that was stoned out of his tree. You don't get that one.

I don't give you Kasparitis either. He was never an offensive defensemen. He gave them leadership and grit. That's all he gave anyone else. Nope, I don't consider that an 'underachievment."

Chris Drury was a disappointment. He was closer to a 60-70 pt guy before he got to NY and he was closer to a 50 pt guy in only 2 of the seasons he was on Broadway.

Avery?? Ok, I'll give you Avery but that is a gift. He tanked his entire career.

Redden, no contest. Completely conceded. He was gross.

So, we have Redden, Drury, and Avery as a gift. Who else?? And let's try to stay relevant to the times. If we start pulling out guys from the mid-90's it's going to get messy.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Posted - 07/26/2012 : 09:14:53 Ok, I gotta get in on this and simple say, WTF???

He played in 31 games in 05 and had 15 goals and 29 pts. That's crappy, hey!! Jagr was 34 yrs old in 06 when he played his first full season for the Rangers.That is past the prime of an NHL player. He did nothing but break 8 long standing Ranger records including goals, points, and game winning goals in a season, won the Hart and Pearson, was a first team All Star, and took the Ranger to the playoffs for the first time in 7 years.

Josh, did you seriously make the statement that you ADDED Jagr to the list of underperformers in NY??? He won the friggin Hart and Pearson! He was the best player in the NHL in '06 as a Ranger! How is that underperforming??

I will be the first to agree that Sather and the Rangers were very loose with their wallet and significantly overpaid many players. However, there is a HUGE difference between a player underperforming and a player not meeting the expectations of their contract.

Give me this long list of players. I can think of a few but when you take the money of out of it and ask yourself if the player actually underperformed, I think you will be surprised of how short that list is.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 07/26/2012 : 08:28:10 I actually had Jagr to that list of players who underperformed in NYR. Sure he was there best player, but he was in his prime and his best years happened before he signed in NY.

slozo

Posted - 07/26/2012 : 05:11:35 And JoshuaCanada also makes a good point here, and it's something I know I have talked about on this forum before, so I remember the history well without researching again.

The only big star to come to the Rangers and perform at an expected, to above expected level, was Jaromir Jagr in the past. From recent years, you can add Gaborik to that list, with the caveat that he had a very bad statistical year sandwiched by two great ones (the last being last year).

It's a lot of pressure, it's New York with all of its distractions and glitz and glam and women . . . and not only is Nash going there as a big star who has been talked about ad nauseum - he is going to New York from an absolute backwater in Columbus.

Just imagine going from Columbus Ohio, to New York NY. wow.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 07/25/2012 : 17:18:03 I could give you the top 10 - 25 or 50 players signed by NYR who didn't elevate there game in NY and even seen a decrease in stat playing under the big lights of the Rangers, or even seen an increase after leaving New York. I am hoping Nash doesn't see this and actually see's his potential with his new linemates, but there is a statistical truth for the Ranger's when signing the biggest fish out there and not receiving full value, more than not. Hype does not equal production in New York

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 07/25/2012 : 16:07:50 Whats funny is while agreeing with all point made about the Rangers getting the best player in this deal, that Dubinsky's stock just rose fantasy wise, as the pressure of big market NY is behind him, and his ice time is up. What I agree with the most is that Dubinsky will produce more than his stats from last year and the other players, which are not spare parts, will more than make up for the loss of Rick Nash.

By the numbers suggested for Dubinsky, if he reaches 60 point or 27 goals this year, is due for a close to a Rick Nash like season in Columbus. And the other players, who are considered good enough to play on a stacked team in NY, are gonna bring up the level of hockey in Columbus from the basement to close to 25th. Can't see NY going from 1-2 in the league, to any higher and I don't believe Nash makes them the favorite to win the cup. If anything, as Beans has pointed out before, Nash's value has been on the decline and he is as likely to fail as succeed in big market NY. Plus as all agree Nash is overpaid compared to similar signings by anywhere from 1 to 2 million per season.

To me Columbus wins this trade based on there raising of stock and New York trading good players for a player who has been declining stat wise and is overpaid based on his declining performance.

@valanche

Posted - 07/25/2012 : 11:37:45 I agree. I expected much better numbers from Dubinsky and there was a point I saw him and Callahan neck and neck for being named captain in new York. His stock rose greatly for me simply because he will be under the radar, getting first line minutes, and likely good power play minutes as well.

quote:Originally posted by slozo

quote:Originally posted by Pasty7

Beans i do apologize for putting words in your mouth but what i meant is if they have similar season as last year 34 pts for Duber and only 10 goals and A,A only 36 points they are both closer to 3rd line players then top six guys, and while i do agree both could be 50 maybe even 60 point guys they could also continue to trend closer to 40 and even 30 point players, espcially on a weaker Columbus team where they may not play with the same quality of players

Actually Pasty, sometimes the effect statistically, when going to a bad team, is an increase in goals and assists. For me as a hockey draft guy . . . Dubinsky just rose up the list.

The reason this happens for the most part is an increase in ice time. More time on ice equals more chance for points, period. And additionally, quite often on bad teams / non-contenders, the need for a player to on a more "defensive assignment" is lessened, and on a statistically poor scoring Columbus team that just lost its only scoring threat . . . they won't be telling Dubinsky to be responsible and play defensively. They will NEED a 25 goal season from him, so the reins are totally loosened.

And from a talent perspective, Columbus will be an upgrade probably. Dubinsky was playing 2nd, third line minutes on the Rangers anyways . . . not playing with Gaborik or Richards. He'll probably be a top line centre posibility on Columbus however, playing with Anisimov, Prospal maybe . . . perhaps even another skilled winger they'll pick up soon, who knows. And Jack Johnson is on the back end with Wisniewski . . . so the offensive support is there as well.

I bet you anything Dubinsky has a career year. 27 goals, 60 points, book it.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

66 is > than 99

Alex116

Posted - 07/25/2012 : 11:07:17

quote:Originally posted by The Duke

I`ve always agreed with Sam Pollacks statement from years back...

..who - ever gets the best player in a trade ...wins the trade....[/b

]all other players are re - placeable parts,

[b]UNLESS...or course...the trade involves a mega deal like Eric Lindros for Peter Forsberg, this kind of deal is diffrent because there are 2 mega stars involved.

Bottom line...NYR wins this trade, no debate.

That's just too easy to say though Duke, especially the part about the Forsberg / Lindros deal. First of all, there was no guarantee that Lindros AND Forsberg were gonna be stars. Secondly, as to the "the team who gets the best player" bit......it's flawed. Stamkos for Kessel, Gardiner, Colburne, Lupul, Reilly and two first rounders would see the Leafs getting "the best player", but getting absolutly killed in the deal.

I get Pollock's point, but you also have to keep in mind he said that many years ago when the world of salary cap wasn't likely even a thought! Things have changed a lot since then.

Having said all that, i'm simply playing devil's advocate and giving an example, but i really do agree that NYR won that trade.

[b]UNLESS...or course...the trade involves a mega deal like Eric Lindros for Peter Forsberg, this kind of deal is diffrent because there are 2 mega stars involved.

Bottom line...NYR wins this trade, no debate.

slozo

Posted - 07/25/2012 : 05:15:14

quote:Originally posted by Pasty7

Beans i do apologize for putting words in your mouth but what i meant is if they have similar season as last year 34 pts for Duber and only 10 goals and A,A only 36 points they are both closer to 3rd line players then top six guys, and while i do agree both could be 50 maybe even 60 point guys they could also continue to trend closer to 40 and even 30 point players, espcially on a weaker Columbus team where they may not play with the same quality of players

Actually Pasty, sometimes the effect statistically, when going to a bad team, is an increase in goals and assists. For me as a hockey draft guy . . . Dubinsky just rose up the list.

The reason this happens for the most part is an increase in ice time. More time on ice equals more chance for points, period. And additionally, quite often on bad teams / non-contenders, the need for a player to on a more "defensive assignment" is lessened, and on a statistically poor scoring Columbus team that just lost its only scoring threat . . . they won't be telling Dubinsky to be responsible and play defensively. They will NEED a 25 goal season from him, so the reins are totally loosened.

And from a talent perspective, Columbus will be an upgrade probably. Dubinsky was playing 2nd, third line minutes on the Rangers anyways . . . not playing with Gaborik or Richards. He'll probably be a top line centre posibility on Columbus however, playing with Anisimov, Prospal maybe . . . perhaps even another skilled winger they'll pick up soon, who knows. And Jack Johnson is on the back end with Wisniewski . . . so the offensive support is there as well.

I bet you anything Dubinsky has a career year. 27 goals, 60 points, book it.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Pasty7

Posted - 07/25/2012 : 03:37:03 Beans i do apologize for putting words in your mouth but what i meant is if they have similar season as last year 34 pts for Duber and only 10 goals and A,A only 36 points they are both closer to 3rd line players then top six guys, and while i do agree both could be 50 maybe even 60 point guys they could also continue to trend closer to 40 and even 30 point players, espcially on a weaker Columbus team where they may not play with the same quality of players

Posted - 07/24/2012 : 21:37:11 Now Pasty, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that either Anisimov or Dubinsky were 3rd line players. They are not. Both legiti 2nd line players. Anisimov is likely a 40-50 pt guy and Dubinsky is a 50-60 pt guy as a peak.

Both are 2nd line guys and I do think that CBJ is a better overall team after this trade. But they are no where near as good as they need to be to compete. For that reason, they did not win the trade.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Pasty7

Posted - 07/24/2012 : 21:22:53 gotta say I agree beans, plus it just seems like Richards Carter Gaborik just fit in together all three have good size great skill and very good if not great speed, these guys are going to get a ton of goals together and Nash will open up a lot of space for Gaborik, and like Beans said Dubinsky and Anisemov with seasons like they had last year are 3rd liners on most teams,, Erixon is a very good prospect, but just a prospect and my bet that first rounder is 25th overall or worse next season.

Posted - 07/24/2012 : 18:00:31 Although I agree that CBJ got the most value they were going to get from Nash, to say they won this trade is more than a stretch. It borderlines on a joke. C'mon. Remove Nash from the CBJ roster and add these three players and are they a playoff team? Nope, not even close. Are they a playoff team in 2 years? Not without a Whole lot of help. Look at that roster. They have a pile of top 6 guys that are 40 pt players. Some might be 50 pt guys in a pinch but not much more than that. I don't think they have a single forward on their team that would displace any 1st line player on any team in the NHL.

The Rangers, on the other hand, were the best team team in the East last season and they got better. Sure, Anisimov and Dubinsky will be holes that are needed to be filled, but their top 6 is pure stank. Gaborik-Richards-Nash can be argued at the best 1st line in the league They at least belong in the discussion. Add in Callahan, Haglin, Stepan, Boyle, Kreider, Asham, and Pyatt. That team is built to let the horse go score and the rest of the team will play defense.

Nope, CBJ does not win this trade. Not by a long shot. This trade gives NY the most legit shot at a Cup in nearly 20 years. CBJ is going to struggle to stay out of a lottery pick. On that, CBJ does not win this trade.

It is said that the team that gets the best player wins the trade. I know I have bagged on Nash for being over rated but that doesn't mean he is still not a very good player. Easily the best player in the trade. Likely the best player in the trade if you were to add up the talent of all of the other players.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

@valanche

Posted - 07/24/2012 : 16:00:09 I would agree this looks to be a much better future for Columbus. Just look at the d-men they have alone:

- Jack Johnson- James wisniewski- Ryan Murray- Tim erixon

Not a bad top 4 for the future at all. They also have a few depth defense guys they can look to trade now for help at forward. They also have Ryan johansen who I think can be a star I the NHL.

66 is > than 99

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 07/24/2012 : 10:17:19 Anybody want to venture into betting that Columbus long term win's this trade. I think although Nash is gonna see a production increase that Columbus will improve in the standing by 3-5 places with this trade and the free agent singings while the Rangers fall between 3-4th places in the standings. The more I look at the players involved in this trade the more I think Nash was overrated. Something tells me Dubinsky is gonna have a bounce back season, if he stays healthy and could/should have a 25 goal season which was close to Nash's output last season. And now that the big market pressure is off and the other players Artem Anisimov and Tim Erixon are decent enough players that this might swing the trade in Columbus's favour.

I was talking with another fan today and forgot that they added depth players this offseason and last years deadline. Jack Johnson and Nick Foligno are good players with lots of upside potential. I'm not saying this is a playoff team or contender, but the future is starting to look up for this franchise now that this trade is done.

Alex116

Posted - 07/24/2012 : 07:26:14 Well, now that this LONG drawn out saga has finally closed we can move onto the next one and hope that it doesn't take as long to hash out. I speak of course of the bet that i know Beans is gonna wanna have with Pasty regarding Nash's output this season.

Leafs81

Posted - 07/24/2012 : 07:08:54 A good trade for the Rangers, Columbus didn't get as much as they wanted, but due to the circumstances that's the most they could get.

Good thing is I'll see Nash play more often now,

Bad thing is, He's now in the eastern conference.

I predict that Nash wont have anything spectacular next season, it takes time to adjust. He will reach the 30 goal plateau and get to about 60-65 points. (just about where he's been for most of his career. He will reach his peak in a couple season though.

slozo

Posted - 07/24/2012 : 05:46:37 Finally!

Well, looks like Nash got what he wanted . . . a nice big American city to park his patriotic butt in. I don't wish him any real ill will per se, but . . . I won't be cheering for him either.

He certainly has a couple of potentially very good linemates to look forward to however, and he'll get every chance to have a career year. We'll see how it pans out, but on first glance . . . the line of Nash, Richards and Gaborik looks like it could be a monster line.

And imagine that, the Rangers didn't have to overpay TOO badly, it seems . . .

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 07/23/2012 : 22:28:24 Clearly Howson came down to earth with his demands for his star. Time for Mike Gillis to do the same with Luongo.....

just1n

Posted - 07/23/2012 : 18:49:46 Not amazing for CBJ, but hard to do much more with such a limited selection of teams to work with and a huge contract.

@valanche

Posted - 07/23/2012 : 15:20:25 The rangers receive a CBJ 3rd rounder - Unless they make the cup final

66 is > than 99

semin-rules

Posted - 07/23/2012 : 13:23:29 I for one and I am sure Rick Nash and his family are extremely glad that this whole thing is behind them now. Enjoy your time in NY Rick, welcome to a cup contender.